Discussion 1: Kant/Regan

For the discussion:

1. Answer the discussion prompt in 6-8 sentences.

Discussion prompt: Choose an action related to your major (Criminal Justice) and analyze it using the first or second form of the categorical imperative. What would Kant’s ethics say to do? And, does this seem correct?

<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>

To help, here are the two forms of the categorical imperative (slightly paraphrased).

First form: An action is right if it follows a maxim that can be willed as a universal law, and wrong if it follows a maxim that cannot be willed as a universal law.

This is similar to the Golden Rule (“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”), but not exactly the same. So, be sure to study my notes and the reading for how exactly Kant applies this principle.

Second form: Always treat persons (ourselves and others) as ends in themselves, and never treat persons as means only.

For Kant, it is OK to treat someone as a means to an end in some cases (e.g., paying someone a fair wage for a service), but what is prohibited is using a person as a means “only.” This would be using them in a way that does not respect their freely-chosen goals. You can also see my video for more details about the terms “ends in themselves” and “means only.”